Healing outcomes at implants installed in sites augmented with particulate autologous bone and xenografts. An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the integration of implants installed at the interface of pristine and grafted tissue augmented with particulate autologous bone or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), concomitantly with a collagen membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 6 Labrador dogs, the distal root of (3)P(3) and (4)P(4) was endodontically treated and hemi-sected, and the mesial roots extracted concomitantly with the extraction of (2)P(2). The buccal bony walls were removed, and two box-shaped defects, one larger and one smaller, were created. After 3 months, flaps were elevated, and the defects were filled with particulate autologous bone or DBBM in the right and left side of the mandible, respectively. Collagen membranes were used to cover the grafted areas. Three months later, flaps were elevated, and a customized device was used as surgical guide to prepare the recipient sites at the interface between grafts and pristine bone. One implant was installed in each of the four defects. After 3 months, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation. RESULTS: The augmentation technique was effective at all sites and all the foreseen implants were installed. In the histological analysis, all implants were integrated in mature bone, at both the buccal and lingual aspects. The most coronal bone-to-implant contact and the top of the buccal bony crest were located at a similar distance between test and control implants. However, these distances were higher at the larger compared with the smaller defects. Especially in the large defect, residual particles of DBBM were found embedded into connective tissue and located outside the bony crest. CONCLUSIONS: Particulate autologous bone as well as DBBM particles used to augment horizontally the alveolar bony process allowed for the osseointegration of implants installed after 3 months of healing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".